When I was in the Navy the word was passed that
if the sailors weren't griping there was something
wrong with them. At the time this seemed to me to
be just another irrational dictum by which the big
brass kidded themselves and consoled their junior officers. As the word filtered down to the enlisted
man it seemed to have a singularly unsolacing effect.

Now, in the light of hindsight and some sociological
insight the dictum seems to make practical sense. Let's
change it to "If the sailors weren't griping there was
something wrong with the organization." Look at the
large organization that 'has no "loyal opposition", no
"party of the second part", no organized minority,
and there you see hardening of the arteries known as
oligarchy. Whether it's a trade union, political party,
church, or U. S. Navy it needs the healthy criticism
which is the first step in avoiding concentration of
power and/or desiccation of ideas. Sometimes this
criticism comes from outside the organization. Sometimes from within. In any case human organizations
need it.

So, the griping could well indicate that (1) the organization is not really up to snuff, (2) the atmosphere is free enough to permit criticism. (3) the
desirably taut organization which has activists instead
of "apathists" is indeed to be congratulated.

These general remarks could well apply to the ASA.
But, for the moment, let's look at the people who study
groups-the sociologists themselves. Yes, the fratern
ity of sociologists is far from uniformity. Even better, it is far from unity. But, it's a healthy kind of
disagreement that is of interest not only to the sociologists themselves, but to Christian men of science at
large.

The fascinating aspect of the division in the house
of sociology is that the minority spokesman is the
President of the outfit! Herbert Blumer is a man
long respected in the society of sociologists but hardly
agreed with by everyone. It is the merit of the organization that it elected a leader for this year who could
focus attention on an issue which undermines the bulk
of research in the field of sociology today. Not only
the healthy give and take of ideas, but the substance
of the issue Blumer states is of interest to ASA members.

Let's look at the issue. The main line research
in sociology today stresses analytical variables which
are discrete and homogeneous. Blumer asserted recently at the Midwest Sociology Society's convention that
this emphasis results in "research at a distance" or
setting up on the basis of certain "outside" concepts
a design of a study. The mode of research is structured in advance. For example, if a sociologist decides
to study the relation between griping and size of organization he proceeds by (1) defining griping or
what indicates it, (2) setting up a questionnaire or
interview schedule to reveal the subject's gripes,
(3) setting up an experimental situation wherein a
large and small group are compared when all other
factors are controlled. Notice that in this approach
the researcher came to the situation or looked for it
with some fairly well established ideas in mind.
Naturally, the level of the sophistication or refinement
of concepts is much higher in today's research than
our prosaic example. But, the point is that he comes
to the situation with concepts or variables which have
been gleaned from many previous studies or observation. In order to test his hypothesis he designs the
study rigorously, and probably makes it very amenable to statistical manipulation-not just measures of
central tendency, but correlation, chi square, critical
ratios, or whatever device best fits the problem at
hand.

Now as I understand the point Blumer is making,
it is that the above type of approach, while useful,
fails to lend itself to a faithful understanding of social
behavior. Why? Because it "emasculates" the individual or group by forcing a conceptual scheme on
one facet of behavior. Rather, says Blumer, ought
sociologists to see persons as "wholes"-in interaction
with others--so that the inevitable scheme with which
we come to our study, may be open to vast amendment
or reorientation as we allow the whole person in a full
setting to act. The cardinal point of any empirical
science is to stay true to the nature of its subject matter. This can be done, and has been done better,
according to Blumer, by sociologists who involve themselves by way of "participant experimentation" in the
study. "Sympathetic introspection" is a key.

As a matter of fact, Blumer indicates that the earlier
sociologists who immersed themselves in the situation
without completely prearranged ideas (and with fairly
crude methods) probably have given us more lasting
results than all the contributions of modern research.
For example, Thomas, Znaniecki, Thrasher, Cooley,
Park, and Weber stand out in the quality of their contributions. What today, asked
Blumer, can match
such concepts of earlier vintage as mores, primary
group, bureaucracy, anomie, definition of the situation, et al? To introduce an intellectual
understanding of experience of people studied is an art that seen is
hard to duplicate given today's approach.

Please note this is no blast against empiricism. It is
a critique of the current variety of empiricism in
sociology which gives us much that is precise, but little
that is significant.

Christian men of science may be reminded here that
the search for truth is best accomplished when free
inquiry and discussion prevail. They may also note
the revised defense of man who cannot be reduced
to fit some analytical scheme without doing despite
to both man and science.